Despite the new Gaza ceasefire, South Africa insists its genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel will go forward. President Cyril Ramaphosa told Parliament that peace efforts do not alter Pretoria’s legal path, as Israel readies its formal response and aid restrictions escalate on the ground.

Ramaphosa: Ceasefire Is Separate from Court Case

Ramaphosa said the peace deal is welcome but “will have no bearing on the case that is before the International Court of Justice,” emphasizing that “progress and healing hinge” on the case being adjudicated. He noted that Israel must file a counter-memorial by 12 January 2026, as scheduled.

Aid Restrictions Rise, Rafah Crossing Remains Closed

In recent days, Israel has rolled out new limitations on aid into Gaza, keeping the Rafah crossing shut despite the truce. The move comes amid growing strain on famine-alert areas and worsening humanitarian conditions. Live reporting confirms the restrictions are continuing even as Hamas releases captive bodies.

Activists, Political Pressure, and Alleged Mistreatment

Six South African activists aboard the Global Sumud Flotilla were detained by Israel. They allege harsher treatment because of South Africa’s ICJ litigation. One is Mandla Mandela, grandson of Nelson Mandela. Among the reported abuses: forced removal of hijabs and being made to strip in front of Israeli soldiers. South Africa called for their release, claiming Israel’s interception violated the ICJ’s humanitarian injunction.

Legal Backdrop & Projections

• South Africa first filed the case in December 2023, accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
• The Court already granted provisional measures in January and March 2024, ordering Israel among other things to allow humanitarian access and prevent genocidal acts.
• Israel’s formal response is due by 12 January 2026.
• Observers expect oral hearings perhaps in 2027, with a final judgment possibly in late 2027 or early 2028.

Legal analysts caution that slow pacing is typical in such high-stakes international cases. The threshold for provisional measures is relatively modest (plausibility rather than proof), and the process from memorials to final judgment is deliberately deliberative.